Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron. To be a "citizen" must admit that one is subject to state authority that exercises sovereign power; whereas to be "sovereign" admits no superior rule. Under the Constitution, there can be no "sovereign citizens" because no person can be above the law. We live under the rule of law, for it is not the citizen that is sovereign, it is the law.
The term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron. [TRUE] To be a "citizen" must admit that one is subject to state authority that exercises sovereign power; whereas to be "sovereign" admits no superior rule. Under the Constitution, there can be no "sovereign citizens" because no person can be above the law. We live under the rule of law, for it is not the citizen that is sovereign, it is the law.
Not quite on point.
The government instituted to SECURE RIGHTS can inflict punishment as its means to secure justice on behalf of an injured party. A sovereign may not be "ruled" by another, but that does not mean a sovereign is immune from justice for his trespass of another's person or property rights.
. . .
As to the power to GOVERN / RULE another, that requires consent of the governed.
. . .
There is no conflict in the law, if a sovereign American national is held accountable for trespass upon the person or property of another.
“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]
“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
. . .
● DEVOLVE - To pass on or delegate to another.
● REGENT - One who rules during the minority, absence, or disability of a monarch.
● SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.
The sovereign American people have the right to govern - themselves. They descend to servants, when in the government. And to be eligible to serve in the government, they must assert citizenship - which entails accepting mandatory civic duties which amount to a surrender of endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property.
. . .
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON (1787), instituted by the Declaration of Independence (1776), NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted with TWO jobs:
1) Secure endowed rights (by prosecuting deliberate trespass, and adjudicating disputes); and
2) Govern / rule those who consent (i.e. citizens).
If a law in question is not securing a right, look to consent.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 04-24-2015 at 03:27 PM..
The Republican Form means the sovereignty of the people.
Sovereignty and private property are inseparable.
. . .
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.â€
- - - Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
. . .
The individual sovereign American rules his own private property domain.
The servant government is his agent when seeking help in securing trespassed rights.
The citizens / subjects of government are not sovereigns, having surrendered endowed rights in exchange for government privileges (i.e. political and civil liberties).
HOWEVER, since 1933 - - -
What most Americans have experienced is the democratic socialist form of government, which includes compulsory charity and expropriation of property (via FICA, etc).
{Government "takes" from one to "give" to another.}
This requires the abolition of private property (absolute ownership), in compliance with the Communist manifesto.
Since no "constitutional" American government can abolish private property, it requires consent of the governed.
Without absolute ownership of private property all that remains is qualified ownership of estate, subject to registration, zoning, codes, rules, regulations, and taxation.
I've known several 'sovereign citizen' types in passing- and it what it boils down to is that they believe that if they just string the correct series of 'legal' words together, it will make them magically immune to prosecution, tax liability, whatever.
The only thing I can figure is that it requires a certain sort of magical thinking about how 'rights' and the legal system work- as if 'rights' are some inherent property that physically exists somewhere. And if you recite the correct magic spell... you 'rights' are invoked and some sort of invisible godly force-field magically protects you from government thugs with guns?
I've heard it described as "legal protestantism"... basically reading and 'interpreting' the law as if it's the bible, and living by that unique interpretation. But I've always wondered: What exactly do these magical, inherent, godly, 'constitutional rights' MEAN if you're sitting in a cold jail cell? I mean, I guess you get to feel that you're 'right' while living in a cage. That seems unimportant to me... but now that I think about it, these right-wingers DO place a premium on being 'right'. Not on finding truth- but being 'right' in some truth that they already just happen to have.
I've known several 'sovereign citizen' types in passing- and it what it boils down to is that they believe that if they just string the correct series of 'legal' words together, it will make them magically immune to prosecution, tax liability, whatever.
The only thing I can figure is that it requires a certain sort of magical thinking about how 'rights' and the legal system work- as if 'rights' are some inherent property that physically exists somewhere. And if you recite the correct magic spell... you 'rights' are invoked and some sort of invisible godly force-field magically protects you from government thugs with guns?
I've heard it described as "legal protestantism"... basically reading and 'interpreting' the law as if it's the bible, and living by that unique interpretation. But I've always wondered: What exactly do these magical, inherent, godly, 'constitutional rights' MEAN if you're sitting in a cold jail cell? I mean, I guess you get to feel that you're 'right' while living in a cage. That seems unimportant to me... but now that I think about it, these right-wingers DO place a premium on being 'right'. Not on finding truth- but being 'right' in some truth that they already just happen to have.
Sovereign Citizen, sovereign individual, whatever. After reading through this theory in depth, it's load of crock. It's legal voodoo, and that's exactly right. What's the point of this "freedom" if you're living in "freedom" in a cell? I feel more free than some "sovereign" that's sitting in a jail cell right now
Sovereign Citizen, sovereign individual, whatever. After reading through this theory in depth, it's load of crock. It's legal voodoo, and that's exactly right. What's the point of this "freedom" if you're living in "freedom" in a cell? I feel more free than some "sovereign" that's sitting in a jail cell right now
If I understand your statement, the laws, quotations, citations, and definitions about "sovereign people" and "endowed rights" and "governing by consent," is a load of crock.
Could you support that opinion with some evidence, perhaps a legal citation or court case?
Do you really have evidence that refutes the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln, and Justice John Jay?
I don't claim to be infallible, but I rely on the law, as written.
If your opinion is based on ignorance of the law, it is not persuasive.
Ignorance of the law is no defense, nor is mockery a rebuttal.
Do not believe me - Go READ LAW for yourself. Spend some time in your local county courthouse law library. Write polite questionnaires to your public servants. Gather some evidence on your own.
But do not be fooled into apathy and ignorance, fearful of what big bad gubmint will do to you for daring to question.
For those who would rather remain enslaved.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!â€
- - - Samuel Adams
For those who would not remain enslaved.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!â€
- - - Patrick Henry
[1] I've known several 'sovereign citizen' types in passing- and it what it boils down to is that they believe that if they just string the correct series of 'legal' words together, it will make them magically immune to prosecution, tax liability, whatever.
The only thing I can figure is that it requires a certain sort of [2] magical thinking about how 'rights' and the legal system work- as if 'rights' are some inherent property that physically exists somewhere. And if you recite the correct magic spell... you 'rights' are invoked and some sort of invisible godly force-field magically protects you from government thugs with guns?
I've heard it described as "legal protestantism"... basically reading and 'interpreting' the law as if it's the bible, and living by that unique interpretation. But I've always wondered: What exactly do these magical, inherent, godly, 'constitutional rights' MEAN if you're sitting in a cold jail cell? I mean, I guess you get to feel that you're 'right' while living in a cage. That seems unimportant to me... but now that I think about it, these [3] right-wingers DO place a premium on being 'right'. Not on finding truth- but being 'right' in some truth that they already just happen to have.
[1] There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. Alluding to it is not a refutation of the laws and cites previously posted.
[2] There is nothing magical about the law. Only ignorance of the law leads people to presume things that are not true.
[3] Technically, advocates of the republican form are nonpartisan free wingers, neither left nor right.
If you can find a law or court case or legal authority to refute or rebut what has been posted, please post it.
I am not infallible. The more eyes on the law, the better.
Did Justice John Jay LIE when he said Americans were sovereigns without subjects?
Did Abraham Lincoln LIE when he stated that no man can govern another without his consent?
Is it "magical thinking" to believe exactly what they wrote?
Or do you interpret their words to mean something else?
And on what grounds do you do so?
I can plainly read that the Founders endowed us with a republican form of government, defined as one in which the sovereign powers were directly exercised by the people (not the citizens). And as Lincoln stated, without your consent, government cannot govern you.
There are two possibilities:
1. The law does support the individual sovereignty of the American national / free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America, or
2. The law does not.
However, if you only look at cases about U.S. citizens / U.S. residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), residing at residences, who are obligated to get permission and / or pay taxes, you won't find evidence of the republican form or of the American sovereign in their midst.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
